This article problematises four interlinked concepts: diaspora identity, diaspora mobilisation, the idea of a "homeland", and the role of transformative events. We explore how diasporas identify with and respond to significant events in their homeland, assessing whether specific identities align with particular strategies of mobilisation. The study contributes novel data on two underexplored groups - Swedish Jews and Israelis residing in Sweden - and how each group responded to the judicial reforms and, more forcefully, to Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. The study builds on written material (news articles, op-eds) and in-depth interviews with diaspora group members, diplomats, and politicians.

In May 2022, Sweden took the historic decision to apply for NATO membership, thereby ending two-hundred years of neutrality and military non-alignment. How can we explain such a dramatic change in Swedish foreign policy? Although Russia’s invasion of Ukraine constitutes a critical juncture for Sweden and Europe, Swedish neutrality and non-alignment has survived other eruptions of major interstate war in Europe. In this article, we argue the Swedish decision to join NATO represented the ‘tipping point’ of a long and incremental process of change in Swedish security policy. Our analysis utilises a neoclassical realist framework which focuses on examining interlinkages between systemic change and unit-level factors. We conclude that in the case of Sweden, exogenous systemic pressures created a critical juncture, but policy change was only possible because of far-reaching transformations of Swedish foreign policy role conceptions and strategic culture, along with the critical role played by policy entrepreneurs in crisis decision-making.

Membership of the European Union (EU) commits member states to cooperate on foreign policy and speak with a common European voice on international issues. Since the end of the Cold War, the European Union has developed a wide range of economic, diplomatic and military capabilities in foreign policy. The EU has gradually expanded its competencies, power, and actorness beyond what is normally associated with an international intergovernmental organization. This has spurred a lively academic debate about how to conceptualize the EU as an international actor and to what extent the EU represents a deeper process of foreign policy change and transformation. This chapter examines EU enlargement as one of the EU’s most important foreign policy instruments to achieve peace and stability in Europe. EU enlargement is an interesting case for examining the complexity of the EU as a foreign policy actor as it combines both supranational and intergovernmental methods of policy-making. The Eastern enlargement of 2004/2007 moved the EU’s border further east and into the regions that Russia considers its geopolitical spheres of interest.

When and how do diasporas influence the foreign policy of liberal democratic states? Few studies have sought to conceptualize how diasporas affect strategic bilateral relations between states. We argue that these non-state actors are an increasingly important factor in western liberal democratic societies, which challenge traditional theories of foreign policy. To explore when and how the transnational societal ties and interests of diaspora groups affect foreign and security relations between states, we develop a triadic analytical model of state-diaspora interactions and specify key contextual factors. To illustrate the dynamics at play, we analyse the influence of the Kurdish diaspora in Sweden on Turkish-Swedish bilateral relations in the wake of Sweden's decision to apply for full NATO membership. Our case-study builds on semi-structured interviews as well as news media sources, speeches and official documents. The study shows that the Kurdish diaspora demonstrates an independent role and an ability to shape the policy process due to the permeability of the political system. As a result, the policy-process is becoming more domesticated, thereby constraining the role of the executive. The article contributes important insights to policy-makers and diplomats on what impact transnational state-society relations can have on foreign policymaking.

Germany’s growing leadership role in the European Union over recent years has been subject to a broad-ranging debate. The changed EU foreign policy-making procedures introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, with a significant delegation of formal leadership functions to the EU level, have created a new dynamic between EU institutions and member states, thereby complicating the picture of how and why Germany exercises leadership in the CFSP. We use social role theory to analyse Germany’s emerging leadership role in European foreign and security policy. We begin by drawing an important distinction between German power on the one hand, and its capacity for leadership on the other. German leadership in European foreign policy has emerged as a result of the Ukraine crisis and is being shaped by the interaction between domestic level factors and the role expectations of its key allies and partners. The form of German leadership in the CFSP reflects the paradoxical nature of post-Lisbon European foreign policy, which we argue can be explained in terms of ‘cross-loading’ dynamics of Europeanization that are horizontal and informal. We illustrate the evolving form of German leadership with original data from an extensive interview survey and a case study of the Ukraine crisis.

Leadership in the European Union is an empirical phenomenon that has increasingly come to attract scholarly attention. While a call for leadership in the EU is often heard, not least in times of crisis, it is also accompanied with a general reluctance to centralize powers. This leadership paradox has historical roots and has resulted in a dispersed type of leadership governance at the EU level. Scholarly work varies from mainly descriptive accounts of leadership by particular individuals to more theory-testing approaches to leadership. The academic field of EU leadership studies contains variation along three primary dimensions: (1) how leadership is defined, (2) by which theories it is explained, and (3) through which empirical cases and approaches it is studied. First, there is a wide differentiation in the literature of how leadership is defined and approached as an object of study. Four leadership approaches can be distinguished in the literature, focusing on the role of individuals, an actor’s position, the process of leadership enactment, and the outcomes produced by leadership. Second, leadership in the EU has been theorized and explained in a variety of ways. Explaining leadership in the EU requires an understanding of what power resources different actors draw on, ranging from material to institutional and ideational powers. These sources often also translate into different types of leadership strategies. A substantial amount of research has departed from rational choice institutionalism, which highlights the importance of a formal position to exercise leadership. Sociological approaches have more recently attracted attention to conceptualize leadership as a social role based on the interaction between leaders and followers. Third, the empirical study of leadership in the EU encompasses a range of different approaches in terms of the type of actors studied, the issues covered, and the data and methods used. EU leadership studies include different types of leadership actors ranging from individuals to institutions, member states, and the EU itself as a global leadership actor. The empirical policy domains vary from issues relating to treaty amending processes, environment and climate policies, eurozone governance and crisis management, to foreign and security policy. Although comparative studies of leadership in the EU exist, the focus has predominantly been on single actors during particular policy processes. An increasing use of explicit comparative designs in the study of EU leadership could have the potential to further advance theory building in the scholarship of EU leadership.

This article examines how the mediatised context of foreign policy provides new opportunities for political leaders to both frame and project their own leadership role to new audiences. The past ten years have witnessed a sharp rise in political leaders' use of new social media to communicate on a range of foreign policy issues. We argue that this new media context of foreign policy, combined with a bolstered leadership mandate, has been central to the construction of a more visible public leadership role for the EU High Representative in the post-Lisbon era. Departing from recent scholarship on performative leadership and new media in International Relations theory, we develop an original theoretical framework drawing on Erving Goffman's dramaturgy of impression management. We employ the concept of "leaderisation" to analyse how mediatisation shapes the leadership process in terms of personification and drama to enable new forms of interaction with followers. We apply this framework in an illustrative case study focusing on the process of negotiating the EU Global Strategy. This diplomatic process provided the High Representative Mogherini with a stage on which she could frame herself in a central leadership position vis-a-vis European citizens to mobilise greater legitimacy for the EU as a global actor.

This article explores new patterns of interaction in foreign affairs among European Union (EU) Member States post-Lisbon, which have increased reliance on horizontal and informal practices. It argues that cross-loading among Member States outside EU institutions has moved centre stage and contributed to smaller groups of like-minded Member States working together. This shift challenges much of our understanding of Europeanization, which is based on vertical forms of uploading and downloading. We illustrate these dynamics using the case of Sweden's recognition of Palestine in October 2014. While this seemed to break away from the established EU consensus, Sweden's decision aimed at leading the way and imparting momentum, especially within the like-minded group of EU countries. Rather than being an example of de-Europeanization, this case shows how Member States can seek new ways of exerting influence in the post-Lisbon environment.

JCMS: Journal of Common Market StudiesVolume 57, Issue S1 p. 114-127 Annual Review Article Double Trouble: Trump, Transatlantic Relations and European Strategic Autonomy Lisbeth Aggestam, Corresponding Author Lisbeth Aggestam lisbeth.aggestam@gu.se University of Gothenburg, GothenburgSearch for more papers by this authorAdrian Hyde-Price, Adrian Hyde-Price University of Gothenburg, GothenburgSearch for more papers by this author Lisbeth Aggestam, Corresponding Author Lisbeth Aggestam lisbeth.aggestam@gu.se University of Gothenburg, GothenburgSearch for more papers by this authorAdrian Hyde-Price, Adrian Hyde-Price University of Gothenburg, GothenburgSearch for more papers by this author First published: 27 October 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12948Citations: 16Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume57, IssueS1September 2019Pages 114-127 RelatedInformation

This article examines a leadership paradox at the heart of EU foreign policy between the demand for effective European leadership, and leadership legitimacy embedded in state practices. This paradox is manifested in the Lisbon treaty that delegated significant formal leadership functions to the European level. We probe the question how and by whom leadership can and should be performed in EU foreign policy. To answer this question, we advance a new theoretical framework drawing on sociological institutionalism and role theory. We argue that leadership should be understood as a social role shaped in a process of interaction between leader and followers. We contribute with new empirical knowledge of leadership role relations based on an interview survey conducted in 2016. The empirical results point to role conflicts over the formal leadership functions in EU foreign policy and the emergence of new informal leadership practices by EU member states.

This chapter argues that the European Union (EU) suffers from a leadership paradox at the heart of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP). It provides a general overview of the academic debates on Europe as a power and highlights the assumptions of leadership implicit in academic literature. The chapter suggests four dimensions to categorise leadership in relation to the study of the ENP – person, position, process and outcome. It considers the question of leadership performance, drawing on O. Young's threefold typology of leadership. The chapter presents the utility of social role theory as an analytical tool for examining the nature, dimensions and scope of EU leadership in its southern and eastern neighbourhoods. This approach focuses on the complex relationship between leaders and followers, and outlines the importance of research in the attitudes, preferences and role expectations of ENP countries.

This chapter examines the complexity of the European Union as a foreign policy actor by focusing on its so-called Big Bang enlargement. Three of the largest EU members — Britain, France, and Germany — differed in their beliefs about the implications of enlargement for their own national interests, shifts to the existing balance of power within the EU, the impact on the functioning of EU institutions, and the future of the integration process. The chapter first provides an overview of EU foreign policy before discussing the historic decision to enlarge the EU in 2004 and 2007. In particular, it analyses the significance of European norms in reshaping member states’ interests and the supranational role of the European Commission in framing and implementing the decision to enlarge the EU. It also considers the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) as an alternative when the powerful instrument of the EU enlargement is no longer available.

The EU’s Role in Fighting Global Imbalances looks at the role of the European Union in addressing some of the greatest challenges of our time: poverty, protectionism, climate change, and human trafficking. Contributions from ten leading scholars in the fields of economics, law, and political science provide in-depth analyses of three key dimensions of EU foreign policy, namely: the internal challenges facing the EU, as its 28 member countries struggle to coordinate their actions; the external challenges facing the EU on the global arena, in areas where global imbalances are particularly pervasive, and where measures taken by the Union can have an important impact; and the EU´s performance on the global arena, in the eyes of other key actors. Based on a broad and interdisciplinary understanding of the concept of global imbalances, this book argues that these challenges follow from pervasive global imbalances, which at root are economic, political, and legal in character.